286
Basics III: Basic Sociolinguistic Concepts
39. Linguistic Repertoire
1. Preliminary Remarks
2. Conceptual Foundations
3. Repertoires, Social Structure and Language
Change
4. Social Meaning in Code-Switching
5. Literature (selected)
1. Preliminary Remarks
The totality of linguistic resources available
to members of a community for socially sig-
nificant interaction constitutes the linguistic
repertoire of that community. The linguistic
resources include all the different languages,
dialects, registers, styles and routines spoken
by the group as well as communicative codes
in other modalities such as writing. The no-
tion of repertoire takes an interacting group
as the point of departure and asks: how do
speakers allocate their linguistic means to the
situations, events, and social relationships
recognized in the community (cf. art. 32, 81)?
The linguistic varieties in a repertoire are
defined not by their origins or structural unity
but by their differing uses or functions in the
social life of a particular group. For instance,
in many multilingual communities the choice
of one language over another has the same
social function or significance as the selection
among lexical variants in monolingual soci-
eties.
When the notion of repertoire was first
introduced in the early 1960s it marked a
radical change in perspective away from
single languages or dialects as the fundamen-
tal units of analysis in linguistics. It inaugur-
ated a turn towards the study of groups of
speakers who have alternative ways of ex-
pressing themselves which are deployed in
particular social contexts and for culturally
constructed purposes. The concept of reper-
toire focussed attention on structured linguis-
tic heterogeneity and on the social meaning
of linguistic choice; it contributed signifi-
cantly to studies of language change and to
understanding the relationship between lan-
guage and social structure.
In the emergence of sociolinguistics as a
research tradition or paradigm, the notion
of linguistic repertoire played a central role.
Since then it has competed with similar for-
mulations that have somewhat different
scope and emphasis: ways of speaking, lin-
guistic variables and domains. At present the
III.
conception of linguistic repertoire is not itself
a focus of research but rather a taken-for-
granted starting point for ethnographic work
on multilingualism and language use in con-
text. Also, current work in this tradition pro-
vides a socially-sensitive approach to dis-
course analysis. Perhaps the best way to expli-
cate the repertoire concept is to discuss how
it provided a solution to certain conceptual
difficulties in dialectology and structural lin-
guistics, and then to outline briefly two lines
of research that have developed around the
idea of linguistic repertoire: one of these ex-
plores the relationship between repertoires,
social structure and linguistic change, the
other investigates code-switching to discover
how social meaning is created in interaction.
2. Conceptual Foundations
Leading linguists in the early part of this
century — Meillet, Saussure, Vendryes, Sapir
and Bloomfield among others — devoted im-
portant passages or chapters in their major
works to the detailed presentation of linguis-
tic diversity. Dialectology provided a wealth
of evidence (cf. art. 64). But in these works
there was no systematic linkage between the
insightful observations of social, stylistic and
geographic variation on the one hand and
the theoretical discussion of linguistic struc-
ture on the other. Nor was there any system-
atic explication of the way different kinds of
social variation — regional, class or occupa-
tional — might be related to each other. As
Weinreich, Labov and Herzog (1968) have
argued, from the Neogrammarians through
Saussure and the American structuralists and
generativists, structure was equated with lin-
guistic homogeneity. What is more, structure
was expected to exist within a genetically
defined language while lack of structure or
"freedom" was expected to reign outside it,
in language use (Hymes 1974, 90 — 92). For
structural linguists of the 1950s the idiolect
became the proper object of description.
Hockett's influential text defined it as a single
person's speech habit at a given time. Ideally,
many idiolects would make a dialect, several
dialects a language. But this formulation only
heightened the difficulties for linguists work-
ing in the tradition of dialectology in complex
societies. The speech of social units such as
regions, villages, castes and occupations ra-
39. Linguistic Repertoire
rely matched the set-inclusion relations hy-
pothesized of dialect and language (Fergu-
son/Gumperz 1960. Cf. art. 44). At the same
time, social and cultural anthropologists who
were looking to language differences as an
index of group boundaries also found that
the linguist's definitions were unsafe guides,
since the categories of structural linguistics
were not uniformly linked to social groups
(Hymes 1968). In the following decade the
emerging generativist revolution, while
changing many of the theoretical commit-
ments of structuralism, left in tact the focus
on homogenous language systems seen as
autonomous with respect to social context.
But the 1950s also saw important critiques
of the definition of language and dialect, that
"most unsatisfactory terminological set"
(Martinet 1954) and of dialectology itself
(Weinreich 1954). These years witnessed a
spurt of work on language variation and use
that is represented in an influential collection
by Hymes (1964). Scholars were also dis-
covering structure "between" systems, for in-
stance the work of Haugen and Weinreich on
bilingualism. However, fundamentally new
ways of conceptualizing the relations between
variation and context did not reach print
until the early 1960s. Linguistic repertoire
was among these new models, all of which
sought a unity between language and social
life by focusing on social interaction and the
use of language for communicative purposes.
In a series of articles published throughout
the 1960s, John J. Gumperz proposed, de-
fined and elaborated the concept of reper-
toire. The influence of European and Indian
dialectology as well as the Prague school's
interest in stylistics and standardization is
evident in the development of the concept.
But equally important was Gumperz's close
scholarly and institutional link with anthro-
pology. Intellectually this included a continu-
ing concern with grand social theory as devel-
oped in anthropology as well as an ethno-
graphic interest in interaction and cultural
knowledge. Developing in close conjunction
with the idea of repertoire were Hymes' no-
tion of 'ethnography of speaking' and the
broader concept of 'communicative com-
petence' (cf. art. 34, 78) as well as Labov's
narrower concept of the 'linguistic variable'
(cf. art. 112).
Repertoire provided a new unit of analysis
that cross-cut the traditional units of lan-
guage, dialect and idiolect by including social
categories in a principled way. Indeed, the
287
idea of repertoire extends structural princi-
ples to describe the patterned relationship
between social context and language. Lin-
guistic variation is not "free." Its pattern and
structure can be discovered if the distribution
of linguistic variants is viewed in relation to
social groupings, social situations and com-
municative purposes. "Within a socially de-
fined universe, forms are selected for study
primarily in terms of who uses them and
when, regardless of purely grammatical simi-
larities and differences." (Gumperz 1971,150)
In studying repertoires rather than dialects
or idiolects, one abstracts from speech and
interaction along quite a different dimension
and confronts a new set of research questions.
In short, the notion of linguistic repertoire
was proposed as a way of reconceptualizing
the relationship between linguistic and social
categories, between language and social life.
In the study of linguistic repertoires it is
assumed that linguistic variation can occur
at any level of linguistic structure, involving
choices among "referentially equivalent"
forms in phonology, syntax, morphology and
lexicon. In any social situation the choice of
a variant in one part of an utterance limits
the speaker in choices made later, in other
parts. Such co-occurrence rules cut across the
normal components of grammar. This is what
makes it possible to divide the speech of even
monolingual speakers into varieties: co-oc-
curring or co-varying sets of features or vari-
ants (Ervin-Tripp 1972). Notice that these co-
occurrence constraints become visible
through a methodology which insists on ethn-
ographic study of language use to ascertain
what is situationally available to speakers.
The varieties are not defined by either the
linguist's or the speakers' named categories.
It becomes apparent that great linguistic dif-
ferences are sometimes socially trivial while
elsewhere trivial linguistic differences carry
great social consequences.
A speaker's choice between varieties is also
structured. It is systematically linked to social
relationships, events or situations. Again,
ethnography is needed to identify the events
deemed separate and significant by the group
and the appropriate or expected choice of
a variety for the event. Repertoires may be
described for groups of varying sizes or even
for individuals. Individuals in an interacting
group need not share all varieties but the
tacit conventions for using varieties and the
interpretive strategies associated with speak-
ing are expected to be known, if not necessa-
288
rily used, by those who participate together
in significant interaction.
Notice that the term repertoire, a metaphor
drawn from theater or performance, alludes
to a storehouse or treasury of possibilities.
The figure is significant. It constructed a dif-
ferent view of speakers who were often so-
cially subordinate and had been excluded or
marginalized by structuralist research inter-
ests: multilinguals and nonstandard speakers
of various kinds. In the progressive political
climate of the late 1960s it provided an image
of such speakers not as deviants but as people
with positive, even remarkable skills.
3. Repertoires, Social Structure and
Language Change
In the many studies inspired by the repertoire
concept, two directions emerge as notewor-
thy. One starts with the correlation of types
of social structures with types of linguistic
repertoires. It is rooted in the important work
of Ferguson (1959) defining diglossia (cf. art.
33), and earlier research on dialects and stan-
dardization. In three classic articles, Gum-
perz (1962, 1964, 1968, all reprinted in 1971)
constructed a classification of speech com-
munities or sociolinguistic situations (cf. art.
32) based on the social function and diversity
of varieties in the community's repertoire.
This can be seen as fundamentally different
yet complementary to traditional linguistic
classification based on the genetic and typo-
logical affiliations of languages. Gumperz
showed that differences in societal complexity
are reflected most directly in language atti-
tudes and in the shape and structure of lin-
guistic repertoires.
However, a typology of speech communi-
ties can obscure the crucial historical pro-
cesses linking social groups. Interesting cur-
rent work stresses the importance of seeing
language attitudes within a very broad polit-
ical-economic framework. The commonest
form of language change today is no longer
the classic differentiation of languages as
populations separate and disperse. Rather, in
our historical epoch colonial and capitalist
expansion, state formation and massive labor
migration have brought populations together
into systems of political-economic domina-
tion and cultural hegemony. The imposition
of standard and colonial languages is part of
this process. Within a society the language
of the more powerful groups gains greater
legitimacy, authority and prestige than the
III. Basics III: Basic Sociolinguistic Concepts
language(s) of the subordinated, even in the
ears of the subordinated themselves. Rather
than constructing typologies which are often
implicitly based on evolutionary or moderni-
zation theory (e.g. Fishman 1978), much re-
search in this vein relies on neo-marxist social
theories and emphasizes historical changes in
political economy within a single political or
geographical region. It attempts to show the
links between the historically changing distri-
bution of power and the evaluation and im-
position of linguistic forms. In a detailed and
illuminating example G. Sankoff ([1976]
1980) traced the change from egalitarian mul-
tilingualism in New Guinea to the use of
lingua francas and colonial languages. In the
pre-colonial era speakers preferred their own
local forms but local languages were not
ranked with respect to each other. With co-
lonial contact and urbanization speakers
began to devalue their own language, accept-
ing the authority of the lingua franca and the
colonial language. This both reflected and
spurred increasing social stratification.
Another example is Hill's (1983) discussion
of routes of language death among the Uto-
Aztecan languages. Hill argues that obsoles-
cence occurred in contrasting ways depending
on how the particular group was linked to
the world economic system.
On a more microscopic social scale, the
internal structure of repertoires has also been
of considerable research interest. In keeping
with previous work in dialectology, Gumperz
distinguished between dialectal and super-
posed varieties. Those linguistic forms linked
to particular social groups, often geographi-
cally separate, are dialectal; those varieties
linked to activities or domains of use, such
as the literary or ritual "high" forms in classic
diglossia, are called superposed. In addition,
Gumperz suggested that two characteristics
of repertoires are particularly sensitive to so-
cial changes: the degree of compartmentaliza-
tion or separation of varieties and the linguis-
tic distance between them.
It is significant that in modern industrial
societies the dialectal/superposed distinction
typically collapses into a single dimension in
which the same linguistic features signal both
social status and the nature of the speech
event (e.g. Labov 1972). In a parallel phe-
nomenon students of bilingual communities
have observed that language shift occurs as
the dominant group's language takes over
ever more of the functions of the indigenous
language. Often, new speech events and new
39. Linguistic Repertoire
functions are introduced, e.g., schooling,
church, which can only be accomplished in
the dominant language, while events which
are closely linked to the indigenous language
are forbidden or stigmatized (e.g. Eckert
1980, Fishman 1964, Dressler/Wodak-Leo-
dolter 1977, Hill/Hill 1980). Then, if upward
mobility is possible at all it involves rejection
of both the indigenous language and the
events associated with it. Bourdieu (1977)
sees the imposition of standard languages in
very much the same light, as a form of sym-
bolic domination exercised through control
of the institutions of cultural reproduction,
particularly the schools. Yet, even with re-
stricted functions, stigmatized languages and
varieties persist even when mobility is pos-
sible only through the dominant language.
What is more, contrary to the implications
of Bourdieu's analysis, working class ver-
naculars have certainly not disappeared de-
spite the enforcement of the standard in
schools and public life (cf. art. 183). The
processes by which the "low" or stigmatized
varieties of subordinated groups survive has
been a focus of debate.
By adopting the anthropological notion of
social network one can clarify the ways in
which different varieties are maintained or
abandoned in the course of speakers' presen-
tation of their social identities in interaction.
Gumperz (1964; 1982) noted that participa-
tion in varied networks gives speakers the
knowledge, identity and right to switch be-
tween varieties in a single event. In a study
of an Austrian town, Gal (1979) described
how language shift is occurring from Hun-
garian to German by demonstrating that ma-
crostructural changes such as industrializa-
tion, urbanization and political centralization
simultaneously changed the evaluation of the
local language and also disrupted social net-
works that had required members to show
solidarity through the use of the local variety.
The concept of social network helps in speci-
fying the process of language maintenance
and conceptually mediates between the
individual level and macrosociological cat-
egories such as class. Thus Milroy (1980)
showed the mechanism by which working
class speech is maintained in Belfast: closed,
multiplex networks enforce the use of phonol-
ogical variants as well as constraining the
social meaning of those variants (see also
Labov 1973). Starting from the individual
speaker in a highly fluid society, LePage
(1978) suggested the somewhat similar notion
289
that highly "focused" linguistic norms de-
velop under particular small-scale social con-
ditions within widely differing societies.
The study of repertoire in contemporary
societies has revealed the importance of a
"solidarity" dimension in the evaluation of
linguistic varieties, existing in addition to the
well-known "status" or prestige dimension.
"Languages of solidarity", be they working
class vernaculars or minority languages re-
duced in function, are often used by speakers
to make economic claims on co-ethnics,
thereby forming part of a survival strategy
for beleaguered and powerless groups. At the
same time, as Woolard (1985) pointed out,
"languages of solidarity" are best seen as
oppositional but contradictory products of a
capitalist era. They enact resistance to the
dominant values and authority of the hege-
monic public institutions in which the stan-
dard variety is required. But this opposition is
accomplished at the cost of creating linguistic
forms which are then used by the larger
society to confirm the speakers' low status.
Clearly this linguistic "resistance" should be
understood in light of broader theories of
cultural resistance and ethnic mobilization.
Yet the societal emphasis on the binary
opposition between two codes is itself histor-
ically situated. As an analytic construct it is
likely to be too simple a scheme to do justice
to the many repertoires world-wide that in-
clude three or more varieties. These codes are
often symbolically and structurally distinct
but are not necessarily evaluated on a single
linear scale (see papers in Romaine 1982).
Description of the full range of diversity in
repertoires, not simply different languages
but the stylistic varieties within languages and
in monolingual repertoires, has also been
done under the rubric of ethnography of
speaking (e.g. Bauman/Scherzer 1974. Cf.
art. 78). Work in this direction includes the
current concern with written as opposed to
spoken modalities and the range of genres
which link them (e. g. Tannen 1982).
In the studies mentioned above, the
emphasis has been more on language use and
less on linguistic structure. But the locally
varying details of compartmentalization,
evaluation and social alternation among vari-
eties also affect their structure and thus the
language distance between them. This has
become an important theme in the research
on language contact and change (Heath
1984). For example, Gumperz and Wilson
(1971) showed that the local versions of three
290
genetically unrelated languages in northern
India converged grammatically while retain-
ing separate lexicons. The results were at-
tributed to the daily alternation between these
languages within a single repertoire over
many generation. Note that the languages
were equal in status but strict separation of
the groups was required by the caste system.
The common assumption that lexicon is al-
ways most susceptible to external influence
while grammar is least so is clearly in need
of rethinking (see also Scollon/Scollon 1979).
It seems that the part of language that is
likely to change at contact is itself socially
conditioned and not determined by linguistic
structure alone.
A related but conceptually separate issue
is the change that can occur in linguistic vari-
eties when their everyday social uses are re-
stricted in specific ways. Again, the particular
local conventions for the allocation and eval-
uation of the repertoire can be linked to struc-
tural changes in the constituent varieties, but
this time the focus is not on co-existent lin-
guistic systems but on the communicative re-
quirements of speech events. Notice that two
levels of social analysis are involved and
linked, and both affect language: sociohistor-
ical changes in the speech community, and
the constraints of face-to-face interaction
(Sankoff 1980, xix). For example, some vari-
eties become socially restricted during lan-
guage shift since they are used for ever fewer
communicative functions. Such cases provide
illuminating contrasts to pidginization. Re-
cent work on socially restricted varieties has
explored a number of the resulting simplifica-
tions in morphology, phonology, subordina-
tion devices and stylistic markers (e.g., Do-
rian 1981; Gal 1984; Hill 1983; Dressier 1972;
Trudgill 1976/1977). It is essential to consider
the implications of these results for broader
grammatical theories. Given the failings of
variable rules (Kay 1978) and the insistence in
the generative paradigm for an autonomous
grammar, the integration of these sociolin-
guistic insights with those of the generative
approach remains problematic. Various dis-
course perspectives on grammar seem more
promising (papers in Givon 1979). Clearly we
need to understand considerably more about
the relationship between the social-historical
and the social-interactional pressures on lan-
guage as these interact with cognitive and
purely grammatical constraints (Slobin 1977).
III. Basics III: Basic Sociolinguistic Concepts
4. Social Meaning in Code-Switching
(cf. 129)
A second line of research which emerged
from the study of repertoires deals with the
way in which choice among linguistic vari-
eties conveys social meanings. Code-switch-
ing is at the center of this set of problems
and has inspired an enormous literature (see
review in Heller, in press). Two types of code-
switching are generally distinguished. In
"situational switching" societal norms of
choice link linguistic varieties to settings,
interactants, topics and other situational fac-
tors. Alternation between varieties (also
called codes) is predictable from independent
information about the culturally defined
components of the speech event. But, al-
though some groups limit their switching to
this sort, many other groups engage in the
much more problematic "conversational" or
"metaphorical" code switching (Blom/Gum-
perz 1972, Gumperz 1982 a). In this type,
segments from both codes occur within a
single exchange in a single speech event, often
in a single sentence. This is not random mix-
ing, nor due to ignorance of the languages.
Rather it follows specifiable linguistic rules
and is done by those who are most fluent in
both languages (Poplack 1980). Most impor-
tantly, it is meaningful. Some claim that rapid
intrasentential switching is a separate mode
or variety in the repertoire and characterizes
particular groups. But most studies assume
that individual switches are themselves sig-
nificant. While one cannot predict the occur-
rence of conversational switches one can
learn to interpret them as the listeners do.
The goal then is to explicate the cognitive
and social processes by which speakers are
able to derive conventional meanings and
social consequences from such switching.
Two principles are crucial in this endeavor.
First, the sociolinguistic rules which link lin-
guistic varieties and events are different from
ordinary linguistic rules which sort sentences
into grammatical and not grammatical. When
sociolinguistic rules are violated the result is
not simply an unacceptable or odd utterance.
Rather, as in the case of Grice's maxims,
floutings of unmarked or expected language
choice are assumed to be intended and in
response to them listeners produce new inter-
pretations of the speaker's meaning. This
process of interpretation is at the center of
the study of code-switching.
39. Linguistic Repertoire
A second and related principle is drawn
in part from the interpretivist tradition in
sociology. Rather than being determined by
the social context in which it occurs, the
chosen forms of speech themselves may de-
fine the speech event or social relationship.
For example, the switch from a formal pro-
noun of address to an informal one is not
simply a reflection of a changed social
relationship but is actually among the means
by which that relationship has been changed.
Similarly, if a linguistic routine or variety is
strongly associated with an activity, then to
start the routine is to signal the start of the
activity. This is what Gumperz (1982 a) has
called contextualization cues. In this view so-
cial identities are in part enacted in speech
and thus cannot always be separately meas-
ured and later correlated with independent
measures of speech. The same can be said
for situations since speech styles can define
events (Coupland 1980).
Many functions of conversational code
switching (CCS) have been identified. To
interpret CCS one must first discover the
local cultural opposition between values, eth-
nic identities and activities which is symbol-
ized by the two codes. Such cultural under-
standings are ordinarily shared only as a re-
sult of frequent interaction and shared group
membership, so CCS is unlikely to occur
among strangers. Armed with background
knowledge, interactants may juxtapose the
codes to accomplish metaphorical and there-
fore indirect, ambiguous or "off-record" ex-
pressions of a variety of conversational acts:
mitigating or aggravating requests, denials,
topic shifts, elaborations, validations or clari-
fications. These discourse or stylistic effects
depend on the listener's inference that the
speaker is serious, angry, deferent, distant,
solidary, etc. And these inferences in turn
depend on participants' knowledge of the de-
tails of the social context, particularly what
choices are marked, or unmarked, in particu-
lar social relationships. Thus code choices
simultaneously manage (or change) the con-
versational task and the social relationship
(Scotton 1976, Heller in press) as well as the
speaker's claims to identity.
What is important here is not so much the
many functions that CCS has been shown to
accomplish but rather the generalization that
it always involves culturally specific expecta-
tions about speaking and about norms (or
competing norms) of interpretation. Finally,
it is but one of many discourse strategies or
291
ways of speaking: culturally preferred ways
of managing interaction, presenting social
identity and attitudes, ordering and packag-
ing information in conversation (e. g. papers
in Gumperz 1982 b). It may be, however, a
strategy which is unique in its use of macro-
political divisions to make interactional
meaning. It is separate from, but involves an
organization of grammatical knowledge. In
the acquisition of code-switching skills, as in
the acquisition of communicative competence
generally, children learn not only how to talk
appropriately but also beliefs about what can
be said and known as well as categories and
evaluations of people and events. In short,
they learn the culture inscribed in interaction
(Ochs/Schieffelin 1984).
It is noteworthy that the analysis of code
switching draws on a cognitive vocabulary
derived from ethnoscience and generative
grammar and uses the critical notion of infer-
ence which it shares with philosophical ap-
proaches to pragmatics. What is more, the
general goal is to understand how an utter-
ance gains the meaning it does in particular
social and cultural contexts, a goal it shares
with many versions of discourse analysis, for
which it offers particularly illuminating and
complicating evidence.
5. L i t e r a t u r e (selected)
Bauman, Richard/Scherzer, Joel, eds., (1974) Ex-
plorations in the ethnography of speaking, New
York.
Blom, Jan-Petter/Gumperz, John J., (1972) "Social
meaning in linguistic structures: Code-switching
in Norway", in: Gumperz, J. J./Hymes, D., eds.,
Directions in sociolinguistics, New York.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1977) "The economics of linguis-
tic exchanges," in: Social Science Information 16
(6), 6 4 5 - 6 8 .
Coupland, Nikolas (1980) "Style shifting in a Car-
diff work setting," in: Language in Society 9 , 1 —
12.
Dorian, Nancy (1981) Language death, Philadel-
phia.
Dressier, Wolfgang/Wodak-Leodolter, Ruth, eds.,
(1977) "Language death," in: Linguistics 191.
Dressier, Wolfgang (1972) "On the phonology of
language death," in: Chicago Linguistics Society 8,
448-57.
Eckert, Penelope (1980) "Diglossia: Separate and
unequal," in: Linguistics 18, 1053 — 1064.
Ervin-Tripp, Susan (1972) "On sociolinguistic ru-
les: Alternation and co-occurrence," in: Gumperz,
292
J. J./Hymes, D., eds., Directions in sociolinguistics,
New York, 2 1 3 - 2 5 0 .
Ferguson, Charles (1959) "Diglossia," in: Word 15,
325-40.
Ferguson, Charles/Gumperz, John J. (1960) "In-
troduction," in: Ferguson, Ch./Gumperz, J. J.,
eds., Linguistic Diversity in South Asia, Bloom-
ington.
Fishman, Joshua (1964) "Language maintenance
and language shift as fields of inquiry," in: Linguis-
tics 9, 3 2 - 7 0 .
Fishman, Joshua, ed., (1978) Advances in the study
of societal multilingualism, The Hague.
Gal, Susan (1979) Language shift, New York.
Gal, Susan (1984) "Phonological style in bilingual-
ism: The interaction of structure and use." in:
Schiffrin, D., ed., Meaning form and use in context,
Washington, DC.
GivonjTalmy, ed., Syntax and semantics 12: Dis-
course and syntax, New York.
Gumperz, John J. (1971) Language in social groups,
Standford.
Gumperz, John J. (1982 a) Discourse strategies,
New York.
Gumperz, John J., ed., (1982 b) Language and social
identity, New York.
Gumperz, John J./Wilson, Robert (1971) "Conver-
gence and creolization: A case from the Indo-Ar-
yan/Dravidian border in India," in: Hymes, D.,
ed., Pidginization and creolization of languages,
London.
Heath, Jeffrey G. (1984) "Language contact and
language change," in: Annual Review of Anthro-
pology 13, 3 6 7 - 8 4 .
Heller, Monica, ed., (in press) Code-switching: An-
thropological and linguistic perspectives, Austin.
Hill, Jane (1983) "Language death in Uto-Azte-
can," in: International Journal of American Linguis-
tics 49 (3), 2 5 8 - 7 6 .
Hill, Jane/Hill, Kenneth, (1980) "Mixed grammar,
purist grammar and language attitudes in Nahu-
atl," in: Language in Society 9, 321—48.
Hymes, Dell, ed., (1964) Language in culture and
society, New York.
Hymes, Dell (1968) "Linguistic problems in defin-
ing the concept of tribe," in: Helm, J., ed., Essays
on the problem of tribe, Seattle.
Hymes, Dell (1974) Foundations in sociolinguistics,
Philadelphia.
Kay, Paul (1978) "Variable rules, community gram-
mar and linguistic change." in: Sankoff, D., ed.,
Linguistic Variation: Models and Methods, New
York.
III. Basics III: Basic Sociolinguistic Concepts
Kloss, Heinz (1967) Grundfragen der Ethnopolitik
im 20. Jahrhundert, Wien.
Labov, William (1972) Sociolinguistic patterns,
Philadelphia.
Labov, William (1973) "On the linguistic conse-
quences of being a lame," in: Language in Society
2, 8 1 - 1 1 5 .
LePage, Robert (1978) "Projection, focusing and
diffusion," in: York Working Paper in Linguistics
9, University of York.
Martinet, André (1954) "Dialect," in: Romance
Philology 8, 1 - 1 1 .
Milroy, Lesley (1980) Language and social net-
works, Baltimore.
Ochs, Elinor/Schieffelin, Bambi (1984) "Language
acquisition and socialization: Three developmental
stories and their implications," in: Schweder, A./
LeVine, R., eds., Culture Theory, New York,
276-322.
Poplack, Shana (1980) "Sometimes I'll start a sen-
tence in English y termino en Espagnol: Towards
a typology of code-switching," in: Linguistics 18,
581-618.
Romaine, Suzanne, ed., (1982) Sociolinguistic varia-
tion in speech communities, London.
Sankoff, Gillian (1980) The social life of language,
Philadelphia.
Scollon, Suzanne/Scollon, Ronald (1979) Linguistic
convergence, New York.
Scotton, Carol (1976) "Strategies of neutrality:
Language choice in uncertain situations," in: Lan-
guage 52, 9 1 9 - 9 4 1 .
Slobin, Dan I. (1977) "Language change in child-
hood and history," in: Macnamara, J., ed., Lan-
guage learning and thought, New York.
Tannen, Deborah, ed., (1982) Spoken and written
language. Norwood.
Trudgill, Peter (1967/1977) "Creolization in re-
verse: Reduction and simplification in the Albanian
dialect of Greece," in: Transactions of the Philologi-
cal Society, 3 2 - 5 0 .
Weinreich, Uriel (1954) "Is a structural dialectol-
ogy possible?" in: Word 14, 3 8 8 - 4 0 0 .
Weinreich, Uriel/Labov, William/Herzog, Marvin
(1968) "Empirical foundations for a theory of lan-
guage change." in: Lehmann, W./Malkiel, Y., eds.,
Directions in historical linguistics, Austin.
Woolard, Kathryn A. (1985) "Sociolinguistic varia-
tion and cultural hegemony: Toward an integration
of sociolinguistic and social theory." in: American
Ethnologist 12, 738-748.
Susan Gal, New Brunswick, N.J. (USA)